Lord Warner: My Lords, I have already said this on many previous occasions, but I will give the noble Lord the figures again. This Government have put expenditure on the NHS up from about the measly £30 billion or so that we inherited to something approaching £90 billion. That is an expenditure increase of about 300 per cent.

Lord Warner: My Lords, the core standards are high level standards, and a number specifically embrace commissioning issues. I refer the noble Lord to core standards 22 and 23 as examples that embrace the commissioning responsibility.
	It is for the Healthcare Commission to set the detailed criteria by which performance of those standards will be assessed. It has already set out the arrangements in relation to a new rating system, which has been published, and it will shortly be publishing detailed criteria that relate to the individual core standards to show how the NHS must perform to satisfy the Healthcare Commission on particular core standards.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their kind words. Birds have received a great deal of support under Labour, as the noble Lord implied. The European Union helped by setting the general terms but, at various stages, the Government—and, to be fair, successive governments—have also implemented the spirit of that directive and wildlife has rightly received the attention that it deserves in all our legislation and regulation in this field.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, there must be national rules or, in view of the noble Duke's origins, country rules—the Scottish rules are different from the English rules—because we are talking about taxpayers' money. Accomplishing and meeting those rules could well involve local communities, as well as the landowner or occupier of the land.

Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, target or no target, this is an area where cost-benefit analysis has an important part to play? In that context, on this, his sad last day in office, can he give an assurance that whatever measures the Government may take, they will take none where the economic costs exceed the likely benefit?

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, now that the oil price is above 50 dollars a barrel—which provides an interesting test of the role of market forces in meeting targets for CO2 emissions—should we be looking fairly soon for an update of the sectoral investment targets of a balanced energy policy, in order further to assist with climate change goals?
	Secondly, I recall that at the TUC 30 years ago my noble friend was someone who everyone liked working for. Is he aware that everyone says that that has been the case wherever he has been employed since and there can be no greater accolade than that?

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I personally heartily endorse the remarks of my noble friend Lord Dundee and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire? She will be very sorely missed at the Dispatch Box. I believe that I speak for the whole House in saying that that is really so and that her performance has been quite remarkable.
	On the Question, does the noble Baroness not agree that the election of a Kurdish—not Arab—president of Iraq and of one Shia and one Sunni vice president entitle us at least to some seeds of hope about this benighted country whose affairs have so occupied the previous Parliament? Can we not build on that and, in looking forward, hope that this will bring Iraq back into the comity of nations as the highly effective and prosperous democracy we have all worked for? Will the noble Baroness agree that this is a happy note on which to end Question Time in this Parliament?

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I subscribe to my noble friend's support for the carry-over Motion, and I support the point that he made about the detailed work, as well as the principle, relating to the best scheme. I include in the detail, although it will not feel like detail to those affected by it, the placing of ventilation shafts where the spoil goes—one item that in particular is causing a great deal of grief.
	In addition, we hope not only that the Bill will proceed quickly but that the next government will put their shoulder behind all attempts to ensure that funding for the scheme is put into place. The Bill in itself will be fine. Without funding and without the necessary work to establish the proper involvement of the business community, as well as government financial support, we will not have Crossrail.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	:TITLE3:COMMONS AMENDMENTS
	The page and line references are to Bill 70, the Bill as first printed for the Commons.
	:TITLE3:COMMONS AMENDMENT 1 Leave out Clause 7.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.
	The other place supported a government amendment to remove Clause 7. As noble Lords will recall from previous deliberations in your Lordships' House, the Government did not support that clause for two key reasons. First, it would cause confusion about the lines of accountability between Parliament and the executive. Section 1 of the ministerial code makes it clear that Ministers remain in office only for so long as they retain the confidence of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected of a Minister and the appropriate consequences of a breach of those standards. It is therefore for the Prime Minister to decide whether a specific allegation relating to ministerial misconduct under the ministerial code needs to be investigated and how any such investigation should be conducted. I remind noble Lords that that view was supported by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in its report in April 2003.
	Secondly, there is concern about the scope for argument about what constitutes misconduct. The debate and amendments in another place highlighted the fact that there would be pressure to apply the clause to a far greater number of inquiries than, I believe, noble Lords intended when they proposed the amendment. As I indicated in our deliberations, it will not always be clear whether misconduct is an issue but, where there is uncertainty, Ministers could be pressed to seek resolutions. I believe that that would set precedents and increase pressure to follow the procedure for a wider range of inquiries.
	We have debated the Bill in the context of the victims of events being inquired into, who might feel that the Government were ultimately to blame for what happened. Noble Lords will recall that I talked about the fact that, on a range of inquiries into events, ultimately people may believe that there is an issue for government. It may be an issue relating to funding, the recruitment or retention of individuals working on, for example, the inquiry conducted by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, into the tragic death of Victoria Climbié, or the issue of recruitment and retention of social services staff and so on.
	Issues arose for government in many inquiries. It is possible that those who felt strongly that the Government's actions or inactions should be classed as misconduct would feel that they had been mistreated in some way if the clause were not put into action, even if we in this House had a rather narrower definition in mind, as I am sure was the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, when he moved his original amendment. That would create false expectations, and—we talked a great deal about this during the passage of the Bill—could damage the vital work that inquiries can do in restoring public confidence. That is the critical part of what an inquiry should achieve.
	The Public Administration Select Committee report proposed parliamentary involvement for certain inquiries, but my honourable friend Anne Campbell—a member of that committee—made it clear in Standing Committee in another place that that recommendation was not aimed at inquiries into ministerial misconduct. The committee felt that allegations of misconduct, such as breaches of the ministerial code, should be dealt with by another route entirely.
	I pay tribute to the work of the committee. It conducted a thorough and wide-ranging investigation and produced a report of enormous value to your Lordships' House and the Government. I am sure that it will be a source of guidance and best practice for many inquiries in the future.
	Yesterday the committee chairman, my honourable friend Dr Tony Wright, spoke eloquently in another place about the value of this Bill. He also made it clear that his concerns now were not about this Bill. They were about a category of inquiries which he described as,
	"not caught by the Bill",
	inquiries in which Parliament itself might want to take a greater role in carrying out. He welcomed the commitment given by the Government, in their response to the PASC report and again yesterday, to be supportive of any work that Parliament wants to do on developing its own mechanisms for inquiry. I am happy to repeat that commitment in your Lordships' House today.
	It is also important to keep in mind the amendments made in this House to increase parliamentary involvement in inquiries set up by Ministers. For example, if there were an inquiry in which it were felt helpful to reinforce the benefit of a statement to Parliament, for which Clause 6 of the Bill already provides, by asking Parliament to approve formally, by resolution, the terms of the statement, Ministers could put down resolutions to that effect, without any need for that to be specifically spelt out in this Bill. Clause 7, therefore, does not create a power that Ministers do not already have.
	I should like to remind noble Lords what my honourable friend Tony Wright said about the benefits of the Bill. He said it is to be welcomed as a strengthening of the inquiry tradition as a whole. Ultimately, the fundamental point of the Bill is not about Parliament or Ministers, but is about giving more inquiries the full statutory powers that they need to gather all the evidence and get to the truth.
	This Bill has no "bouncebackability", to quote a term from a Sky sports channel. Noble Lords will know that this is our last opportunity to consider it. During the passage of the Bill—I say this personally—I have listened very carefully to all the concerns raised in your Lordships' House and I have amended the Bill as appropriate, whether from the point of view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, the noble Lord, Lord Laming, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, or indeed other noble Lords who have raised points of concern. It would be a shame if the Bill did not reach the statute book. I shall be very clear with noble Lords: if the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, are carried today, the Bill will not reach the statute book. The Bill cannot come back.
	I believe it is a good Bill. I support what my honourable friend Tony Wright said, and I endorse the comments made that we shall seek to work with Parliament to address the concerns of the Public Administration Select Committee and to deal with those issues. I also endorse what he said, that such a matter is not for this Bill. On that basis, I hope noble Lords will feel that I have listened sufficiently and will, therefore, feel able to accept the Commons amendment.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the issues that underlie both amendments that we have tabled today have been thoroughly debated on three previous occasions, at Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. Therefore, I need only indicate, briefly, to your Lordships the content of the amendments and rehearse, equally cursorily, the arguments in support of them.
	The two amendments are, in one sense, linked because both of them seek to constrain the power of the Royal Prerogative with respect to inquiries. Amendment No. 1A deals with a special category of public inquiries—inquiries which involve ministerial misdemeanours. The amendment requires Parliament to determine the terms of reference and the composition of the inquiry committee and, in that way, constrains the independence of the Prime Minister to do so.
	In circumstances where the Prime Minister is inclined to select a judge to chair a public inquiry, the second amendment, Amendment No. 2A, will require him to obtain the permission of the Lord Chief Justice. In other words, the two other arms of the constitution—Parliament with respect to ministerial demeanours and the judges with respect to a proposal that a judge should chair a committee—are both engaged, in my submission, in a constitutionally appropriate fashion.
	The Government are opposed to both of those constraints. That does not surprise me in the least. It is wholly consistent with the approach of the Government to the balance of power between the executive arm of the constitution, on the one hand, and the judicial and parliamentary arm of the constitution, on the other, ever since they came to power in 1997. It is clear that the Government wish to make the executive arm the overwhelmingly predominant arm of the constitution.
	With respect to both of the issues raised by the Commons amendments, I at least have to give the noble Baroness high marks for consistency. What the Government are seeking to do is wholly consistent with what they sought successfully to do the other day by removing the long-standing constitutional convention that the Lord Chancellor ought to be a lawyer and a Lord. Moreover, on more than one occasion I have heard from the government Benches certain straws in the wind that, in the extremely unlikely event that the Labour Party wins the next election, there may well be early initiatives to reduce, not only your Lordships' scrutiny powers, but also the delaying powers of your Lordships' House. Behind our two amendments, therefore, lie big constitutional issues.
	Turning to Amendment No. 1A, the Bill is defective in that it says absolutely nothing whatever about the establishment and operation of inquiries where ministerial demeanours are concerned. I have been brought up to believe that when a Minister has potentially acted unconstitutionally, that Minister is responsible to Parliament. I was surprised to hear the noble Baroness tell your Lordships' House that, in fact, that doctrine no longer appears to be the case. The noble Baroness took us to the text of a particular government document and quoted it, saying that Ministers remain in office only for as long as the Prime Minister allows them to do so. My understanding is that Ministers remain in office as long as Parliament permits them to do so.
	I can quite understand why the noble Baroness may have failed to observe that point. Underneath the pile of rubble that the Government have unloaded on our constitution since 1997, it is difficult to discern the doctrine of ministerial responsibility, but it is the doctrine of ministerial responsibility that is right behind our first amendment. At both Second Reading and in Committee we advanced the view that, where ministerial misconduct is concerned, the committee investigating that misconduct should, first, be established by Parliament and, secondly, be composed, either entirely or predominantly, of Members from another place and your Lordships' House.
	In between the Committee and Report stages, as the noble Baroness quite rightly indicated, the Public Administration Select Committee of another place published a report entitled Government by Inquiry. Those of us who had been advancing those views from these Benches were delighted to read that our views were wholly endorsed by that committee's report. I refer your Lordships to the concluding passages. I quoted them on Report and I make no apologies for quoting them again. The committee said:
	"We recommend that in future inquiries into the conduct and actions of government should exercise their authority through the legitimacy of Parliament in the form of a Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry composed of parliamentarians and others, rather than by the exercise of the prerogative power of the Executive".
	What better endorsement could the views of the Opposition have; especially when the overwhelming membership of that committee comes from the noble Baroness's party?
	The Public Administration Select Committee appended to its report the text of an amendment that we and the Liberal Democrat Benches jointly supported on Report. Between Report and Third Reading, as a result of discussions that I had with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, we amended the text of that document in order to be more kindly to the Government, and voted on the text at Third Reading.
	The noble Baroness has expressed great concern about the amendment; but the fact is that as a result of the approach taken by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and myself, the provision is not mandatory on the Government, it is only directory. The word is "may", not "must". So I remain totally unconvinced that the arguments advanced against us this morning by the noble Baroness should carry any weight.
	Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".—(Lord Kingsland.)

Lord Goodhart: That is the case, my Lords, but what we are considering here is the restoration of Clause 7 to the Bill.
	In any event, in whichever form the amendment appears, the Government cannot be forced to direct an inquiry under the Bill. They could either set up an inquiry outside the Bill or have no inquiry at all. It is a fairly general view, which I share, that a better course would probably have been for the Select Committees in the House of Commons to have a power to conduct inquiries and to be prepared to do so. But that would have involved changes of procedure, in particular the employment of counsel to cross-examine witnesses, rather than having them cross-examined by members of the committee, which the chairmen of the Select Committees in the other place seem unwilling to accept. So that particular way of moving forward is not open.
	In a speech made yesterday in the House of Commons, Tony Wright, the chairman of the Public Administration Committee, recognised the existence of these problems and therefore did not seek to press his amendment. I think that that is an important consideration to take into account.
	As I indicated, while we would support in principle the idea that there should be a greater degree of parliamentary involvement, we are not convinced that the amendment which now appears in Clause 7 provides a workable solution to the problem of getting Parliament more closely involved in the inquiry procedure.
	In normal circumstances it is likely that we would have supported Clause 7 for one round of ping-pong though no further; there is, as the Minister pointed out, no time for that now. We are reluctant to vote against an amendment that we supported earlier, but I accept that it would not be appropriate now to continue to support Clause 7. It is therefore our intention not to vote in support of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I have considerable respect for the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. With that respect, I must say that he has been uncharacteristically unfair in describing the constitutional reforms carried out since 1997 as "a pile of rubble" and suggesting that they have diminished ministerial responsibility. In fact, without going into it in any detail, the Human Rights Act, indirectly the Freedom of Information Act, and the Constitutional Reform Bill have all increased the accountability of Ministers to the courts, to Parliament and to the public. So I do not accept the criticism that has been made, especially since we on these Benches have welcomed all those reforms.
	The noble Lord has indicated correctly that his amendment would restrict the Royal prerogative. I would respectfully remind him that when I introduced my Executive Powers and Civil Service Bill a few months ago, I received absolutely no support whatever from the Conservative Opposition in seeking to regularise the prerogative and place it under parliamentary control.
	I, like my noble friend, am sympathetic to this amendment and to the other to which we will come. But I am convinced that this is a very well-designed Bill. I would not like to go back and be stuck with the 1921 Act, which would be the consequence if the Bill were now to be blocked on the basis of either of the amendments being pursued. For that reason I very much hope that the Bill will now go through on oiled castors.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the second group of amendments concerns the question of whether the relevant senior judge must consent or merely be consulted before a judge, under the auspices of that senior judge, is to be appointed as a member of the panel. The term "senior judge" means in the case of a judge of the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice or at present the senior Law Lord. In the case of a judge of the courts of England and Wales, it means the Lord Chief Justice, with corresponding provisions for Scotland and Northern Ireland, where the consent required is that of the Lord President or the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland.
	The amendment was moved by us in your Lordships' House and supported by the Conservatives. The moving force behind the amendment was the view of the Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, that, as the person responsible for judicial deployment in the courts of England and Wales, he should have a veto over the removal of judges from their normal duties. We support and sympathise with that view. However, I also understand that the Lord Chief Justice is concerned, as are we, that the Bill should go through with or without a clause requiring the consent of the senior judge.
	As the Minister pointed out, it is unlikely that the Lord Chancellor would proceed with a request to appoint a particular judge over the objection of the relevant senior judge. It is also true that any judges approached with a view to their appointment to the panel of an inquiry would make themselves aware of the views of the relevant senior judge and would be very unlikely to accept the appointment contrary to the wishes of that senior judge. In those circumstances, it seems that in practice the amendment would add little to what will be the case. Nor do I think that it has the kind of major constitutional implications suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland.
	In this case, being aware of the obvious pressures of dealing with the matter at this very late stage of the Parliament, and recognising that the Bill is worthy of going onto the statute book, we again do not wish to act contrary to what we understand are the views of the Lord Chief Justice on this issue. Therefore, as we did on the previous occasion, we will abstain if a Division is called—or, at any rate, noble Lords on this Front Bench will abstain.

Lord Ackner: My Lords, this amendment of the House of Commons has a number of bizarre features. The first, of course, is that it has been twice moved—on Report and at Third Reading—by the Liberal Democrats, and now they have changed their mind. I shall deal with the reason for that change later on. Secondly, as a result of the recent and narrow defeat of the proposals of the Opposition in regard to the Lord Chancellor being a Member of this House, a senior lawyer and a senior member of the Cabinet, any Tom, Dick or Harry—I suppose I should add "or David or Charlie"—could end up being the Lord Chancellor. That gives one even more reason for requiring the Lord Chief Justice to have an equal say with the new Lord Chancellor.
	The third feature, which has never yet been answered by the Government, is that as the much vaunted concordat—which was looked upon, I remember, by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, with a certain amount of cynicism—makes it clear that deployment is a matter for the Lord Chief Justice; on no stretch of the imagination could this be other than an exercise in deployment. A judge is to be taken out of the High Court, the Court of Appeal or your Lordships' Appellate Committee and deployed elsewhere. That is in no way different from a judge being taken out of London and being assigned to a circuit for an extra two months, or so.
	This is part of what is provided for in the concordat. It makes depressing reading to know that there has been no reply from the Government to something as obvious as the clash between the agreement on the concordat and what is now proposed, even though the point was made both on Report and at Third Reading.

Lord Ackner: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, has he read the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cullen, the President of the Court of Sessions, as reported in Hansard, at Report stage of the Inquiries Bill. He said:
	"This matter should be in the hands of the senior judge; it should not be left to the judge who is the target of the Minister's attentions. From my own experience as an inquiry chairman, I think that most judges would feel very diffident about turning down an invitation to take an appointment which was seen as being for the public good".—[Official Report, 7/2/05; col. 646.]

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	:TITLE3:COMMONS AMENDMENTS
	The page and line references are to Bill 71, as first printed for the Commons
	:TITLE3:COMMONS AMENDMENT
	1 Clause 18, page 46, line 1, leave out subsection (3)

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, in a way we have almost heard speeches on the Bill do now pass, and I am delighted that noble Lords were able to smuggle in now what we are pressed to avoid at Third Reading. I would like particularly to join my noble friend Lord Morris in paying tribute not only to those noble Lords present but to those who are not here today for their very real contribution not just over the past few months, but over their lifetimes to the cause of disability issues.
	I would like to make a couple of brief points on the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. I recognise and I appreciate that he is not seeking to jeopardise the future of the Bill by seeking to test the will of the House. We did think long and hard, but the result of thinking long and hard, particularly on my part, is that I was unpersuaded. The notion that if you think longer you agree with your opponent seems to me to be a rationalist fallacy on the part of the noble Lord. When he said that we needed to ensure that people with recurring depression—and then he moved across into talking about depressive illness—are covered, I absolutely agreed with him. They will be. I wonder whether the gap between us is as great as he thinks it may be.
	For example, almost everyone in your Lordships' House will have lost a parent, and many of us will have lost both parents. It is conceivable that the loss of one parent produced a period of depression of, say, six months and the loss of another parent perhaps another month some three or four years later. That would apply to almost everyone; losing two parents, grieving, being depressed, possibly requiring some medical support or help at that time. Does that mean that we are therefore all permanently under the coverage of DDA? No, I do not think so. I fully take the point made by the noble Lord about diagnosis, labelling and so on. In our daily lives we do know the difference between what I would call the bad luck events of bereavement, loss of job, divorce, and a depressive illness, which is a clinical situation. However, if someone has a depressive illness that person is rightly protected against severe stigma.
	It would be like saying that if someone went skiing, broke their leg, and was off and then three years later broke their shoulder and was off work for many months, that they should be permanently covered under the DDA. They would be if those fractures were the results of osteoporosis, but if they were separate, unconnected incidents, they would not be. We should not be importing back into mental health, particularly given that we have got rid of the definition of clinically well-recognised, stronger barriers or protections than currently exist under physical health. That would be an inappropriate way to go.
	Having said that, we all accept, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, made that point well, that this is not necessarily the end of the matter. By having a DRC, as my noble friend Lord Carter said, we put the engine into the 1995 Act, which we all supported, but it lacked power to deliver. By establishing the DRC it has power to deliver and its codes of guidance, its consultative role and so on mean that this is an ongoing dynamic. We may over time decide that as a Parliament we should move more towards recognising the social rather than the medical model of disability. That will be for the DRC to establish in conjunction with the voluntary groups and to persuade your Lordships and the other House. At that point, I am sure that we will continue to revisit any issues on which the consensus and the evidence suggest we should.
	I am pleased that noble Lords are willing to see this Bill reach the statute book. I give way to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, as my late husband said, the key thing you need to know about people is whether they like their compliments forehand or backhand. I think that counts as backhand.
	In the spirit in which it was intended, if not necessarily delivered, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. On this Bill, as on many that your Lordships have been involved with, on pensions, jobseekers' allowance and the like, the method of Lords scrutiny, providing that the issue was not either high profile ideologically or very expensive, or dealt with in a sharp and pointed way, allowed us to progress in ways that are not always available to the other House.
	I know from work not just on this Bill but on many others how much better and robust the legislation is made by responding to well-voiced, evidence-based concerns from the opposition Benches. Certainly, when I was in opposition, I used to get exasperated and muscle up to John Mackay afterwards saying, "I moved 20 amendments, you should have adopted one of them, why the hell did you not adopt one amendment? You should take them seriously". I remember thinking at the time that that was an inappropriate way for a House to behave, particularly this House.
	I am grateful for the kind words of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and I look forward to him supporting other measures that I am sure my Government intend to introduce after the election that will continue to add to the common good and the commonweal of all our citizens.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	:TITLE3:COMMONS AMENDMENT
	2 Clause 20, page 47, line 23, leave out subsection (12)An amendment (privilege) made.

3 Page 12, line 41, leave out from "unless" to end of line and insert "one of the conditions in subsection (5A) is met"
	The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
	3A Because it is inappropriate for Passenger Transport Executives to have the involvement in the franchising of railway passenger services that would result from the provision to be made by Lords Amendments Nos. 1 to 7.
	:TITLE3:LORDS AMENDMENT
	4 Page 12, line 41, at end insert—
	"(5A) The conditions referred to in subsection (5) are—
	(a) that the agreement is not for purposes relating to or connected with the provisions of—
	(i) services for the carriage of passengers by railway; or
	(ii) station services provided for purposes connected with any such services;
	(b) that the agreement relates exclusively to the grant of permission for a person to use a railway facility where a Passenger Transport Executive is the facility owner or the person granted permission; and
	(c) the agreement is approved by the Secretary of State."
	The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
	4A Because it is inappropriate for Passenger Transport Executives to have the involvement in the franchising of railway passenger services that would result from the provision to be made by Lords Amendments Nos. 1 to 7.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move Motion A, that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 1 to 7 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 1A to 7A.
	We have had considerable debate in this House on this important issue, in Grand Committee, on Report and at Third Reading. All aspects of it have been fully aired, so I do not intend to detain the House long. The amendments passed by this House and rejected by the other place seek to maintain a system that encourages confrontation and enables the PTEs to indulge in brinksmanship—all of which costs the national taxpayer money and cuts across the vision for the future of rail set out in the rail White Paper.
	I understand the sincerity, persistence and effectiveness with which noble Lords have pressed their amendments on the issues, and we had interesting debates on them at all stages of the Bill. However, noble Lords' concerns are misplaced. The loss of co-signatory status will not materially affect the PTEs' ability to invest in their local rail network or to have access to the information relating to rail that they require for their transport planning purposes. Nor will the PTEs be excluded from informing the development of the shape of services in their area, as there is a clear commitment that they will be a key player feeding into the service specification. All that the Bill will do is remove the PTEs' ability to dictate to the Secretary of State, which is a power that can lead to confrontation—we seek to avoid that—and that cuts across the rail White Paper's vision for the future of the railways.
	The Government are clear that we cannot accept the Bill if the amendments are included in it. Given that there is general consensus throughout this House and the other place that what this Bill seeks to achieve is positive for the railways, I hope that noble Lords will agree with our democratically elected colleagues in the other place and with the Commons amendments.
	Moved, Motion A, That the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 1 to 7 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 1A to 7A.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I beg to move Motion A1, as an amendment to Motion A, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendments Nos. 1 to 7".
	I hear what the Minister says, but am still not satisfied with what he says. In another place, the Minister with responsibility for railways yesterday said that the amendments,
	"raise a matter of principle about which the Government are clear. There is a new role for the PTEs"—
	the passenger transport executives. I honestly believe that their role has been significantly diminished—that is certainly the case—and that there is new role for them in the Government's mind, perhaps as there was in Mr Flight's mind about what would happen when there was a new government. They have a secret agenda for the PTEs, which is that the PTEs will be the instrument lumbered with any of the Government's proposals for the substituting of railway services with bus services.
	PTEs will be presented with a prescription by government that will leave them with choices to make, which will be formulated on the basis that there is insufficient money to sustain their railway services. The unfortunate passenger transport executives will be left with making the unpleasant choices about the future size and shape of the railway. If my forecast turns out to be true as a result of the general election, and if the Minister is still enjoying the position he enjoys today, I shall be extremely strong in my criticism and shall not forget the warning that I give him.
	Reference was made in another place to,
	"the role of the Secretary of State in setting the strategic direction and the amount of national funding that will be invested in the railways".
	It was said that:
	"The system that the PTEs are seeking to retain is totally inconsistent with that principle".
	It has not been inconsistent so far with the management of train services. The Minister there also said:
	"The Government have listened carefully to the concerns raised here and in another place about PTEs".—[Official Report, Commons, 6/4/05; cols. 1525–26.]
	The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, may confirm what I believe to be the case—that the amendments moved by the MPs for Manchester were not discussed in another place, but guillotined out. The Government did not listen to the representations that those MPs were going to make on behalf of the PTEs. That is one reason why this House is the only vehicle in which such protestations may be made.
	It is unfortunate that there is a very tight timetable, as with so much legislation. The Government embarked on a Queen's Speech that we all agree contained far too much legislation.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
	Britain is today experiencing the longest period of sustained economic growth since records began in 1701. In addition, that period of sustained growth has been combined with low inflation, low interest rates and the lowest level of unemployment for a generation. Since 1997, more than 2.1 million jobs have been created, while according to the International Labour Organisation, unemployment has fallen by more than 635,000, remaining consistently below 1 million since February 2001.
	In his Budget speech in March, the Chancellor of the Exchequer renewed the Government's commitment to monetary and fiscal discipline and economic stability. The Government remain on track to meet their fiscal rules.
	At the same time, the Government are able to continue to invest in the long-term service provision that matters most to the people of this country. In his speech, the Chancellor reiterated the Government's commitment to long-term investment in our National Health Service and announced an increase in spending on health of £23 billion for 2007–08. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, that he has not missed anything except the gloat! The Finance Bill builds on our successes, strengthens and modernises the economy, and helps to prepare the United Kingdom for the challenges of the future.
	The Government are determined to close down the opportunities for tax avoidance and evasion and to ensure that everyone pays their fair share. The Finance Bill includes a number of measures to deliver exactly that objective. Clauses 59 to 79 introduce anti-avoidance legislation for film tax reliefs. The aim of these measures is to remove opportunities for abusing the film tax reliefs and to put such matters beyond doubt for the film industry in the future.
	Clause 58 extends the relief for low-budget British films until next year to enable detailed consultation with the industry on replacement film tax reliefs so that future support for the industry can be provided on a stable basis that is less vulnerable to tax avoidance schemes.
	The Government are also introducing new anti-avoidance rules, which will counter a tax advantage in specific circumstances where a UK tax avoidance motive is present. Clauses 85 to 91 will tackle excessive claims for double taxation relief.
	Enterprise is crucial to ensuring that the United Kingdom is well equipped to compete in increasingly globalised markets. Clauses 10 to 13 will mean that corporation tax rates will remain frozen for this year. This sees the starting rate for small companies remain at 0 per cent.
	Clauses 20 to 22 will remove the tax uncertainty surrounding the formation of university spinout companies. Rules will ignore the effect on shares acquired by researchers on the transfer of intellectual property into a spinout company and remove the consequent up-front tax and national insurance contribution charge.
	Clause 96 brings to an end stamp duty relief in disadvantaged areas. This relief was time-limited by state aids approval to 31 December 2006 and is now ended to provide certainty to businesses. It is followed by the local enterprise growth initiative, which will better target support to drive forward local enterprise and business regeneration.
	Building on the foundation of support for retirement provided by the basic and additional state pensions, the Government continue to focus resources on the poorest pensioners. It is imperative that those who need the most hep receive it, and the Government are fully committed to ensuring that that is the case. Clause 9 increases age-related personal allowances in line with earnings. For those aged 65 and over, the allowance will be increased by earnings rather than prices, ensuring that more than half of all pensioners do not have to pay tax.
	Clause 101 makes additions and amendments to the pensions tax simplification legislation introduced in the Finance Act 2004, which will come into force in April 2006. The changes within this clause include measures that give schemes, employers and pension savers additional flexibility. In addition, the Pension Protection Fund, as legislated for in the Pensions Act 2004, came into being yesterday. Clause 102 will ensure that there will be no adverse tax consequences for members of pension schemes taken over by protection funds.
	In his Budget speech, the Chancellor commended our Armed Forces for the services that they perform. Clause 19 will ensure that servicemen and servicewomen who are injured while serving their country will be entitled to new tax-free compensation payments. This clause also amends existing legislation so that benefits payable under the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Act 2004 will suffer the same tax treatment as the equivalent benefits payable under the Armed Forces pension scheme.
	The Government remain absolutely committed to delivering sustainable development and a better environment and to tackling the ongoing global challenge of climate change. They continue to use a range of economic instruments and various other means and measures to support those aims. Landfill tax is part of a national policy aimed at reducing the amount of waste disposed of at landfills and encouraging the diversion of waste towards more sustainable uses. Since this tax was introduced, the volume of such waste disposal has fallen by nearly 20 per cent. Clause 99 increases the standard rate of landfill tax on relevant waste disposals with the aim of cutting landfill still further.
	Finally, reflecting vehicle excise duty's environmental focus, Clause 7 will increase the duty rates for the two most polluting vehicle bands, while the lowest four bands will remain frozen.
	The Government also remain committed to their targets to reduce child poverty and, indeed, to eradicate it by 2020. Building on previous increases in financial support for families, the Budget announced a commitment to increase the child element of child tax credit at least in line with average earnings up to and including 2007–08. That will benefit 6.7 million children in 3.5 million homes.
	To help first-time and low-income buyers to purchase their own home, Clause 95 doubles the stamp duty land tax zero-rate threshold to £120,000. To provide a fair and targeted inheritance tax system, Clause 98 introduces increases in the thresholds above indexation for the next three years to £275,000 in 2005–06, £285,000 in 2006–07 and £300,000 in 2007–08. These increases will ensure that 95 per cent of estates remain tax-free.
	The civil partnership legislation introduced last year reflects our changing society and provides the same legal status to civil partners afforded to married couples. Clause 103 takes steps to ensure parity of tax treatment between married couples and civil partners. In keeping with fairness in the tax system, Clauses 46 to 57 introduce changes relating to alternative finance arrangements that do not involve either the paying or receipt of interest, including those designed to be Shar'ia-compliant.
	Both the economy and the public finances are in a strong position and the Government are keen to ensure that our country is prepared for the challenges ahead. This Finance Bill is realistic about the challenges that this country faces in competing with the world economy. The measures to create fairness in the tax system—and in the wider economy—will ensure that more people will be able to benefit from our economic strengths and stability. This is an economy that supports fairness and opportunity for all to enjoy increasing prosperity. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the Finance (No. 2) Bill with his usual enthusiasm and with his usual speed of delivery.
	Our annual debate on the Finance Bill provides an opportunity for us to debate the Budget, from which the Bill is derived. This is the only opportunity that your Lordship's House will have to debate last month's Budget Statement and so I shall turn to that in a moment.
	Starting with the Finance Bill itself, it is of course unamendable in your Lordships' House, but it normally arrives here after some scrutiny in another place—not as much as there was in the days before Blair but, none the less, some real scrutiny. And, importantly nowadays, the Finance Bill is scrutinised by a sub-committee of your Lordships' Economic Affairs Committee, and both we and the other place have the benefit of that scrutiny.
	The first Finance Bill was introduced in the other place only last week, but everyone knew that it had no chance of becoming law in that form. It was not as fat as last year's Finance Bill; nevertheless, it ran to two volumes and 341 pages.
	When a similar timing issue in relation to the general election arose in 1992, the then Chancellor, my noble friend Lord Lamont, took through a minimalist Bill—just enough to raise taxes until the result of the election was known: 11 clauses and one schedule. But this Chancellor had to try his luck. He tried with a Bill of 172 clauses and 20 schedules. My honourable friend George Osborne, the shadow Chief Secretary, rightly resisted that. We still have 106 clauses and 11 schedules, but my honourable friend has, in particular, saved the nation from some highly complex anti-avoidance legislation being passed without any parliamentary scrutiny or without the opportunity for outside bodies to contribute to the debate. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales said that it was,
	"strongly of the view that if the provisions in the Finance Bill are not subject to appropriate Parliamentary scrutiny, this will be to the detriment of UK business and will undermine confidence and trust in the Parliamentary process".
	The sensible stance taken by my honourable friend has avoided that outcome. Let me be clear: we do not support tax avoidance, but we support legislation that is properly considered by Parliament, which includes the work of your Lordships' Economic Affairs Committee. We also support legislation that takes on board the expertise that is available outside Parliament.
	We do not oppose the Finance (No. 2) Bill before us today, but we regret that it still contains some major elements of legislation which, although consulted on, have not been the subject of proper scrutiny. In another place, the Bill received only four hours of parliamentary time. There are some aspects, such as the introduction of tax relief for civil partners and trusts for vulnerable people, that we positively welcome, but I cannot say that our welcome is unqualified for much of the rest of it.
	The Bill is a testament—a last testament, we hope—to a Chancellor who does not begin to understand that there is a crying need for tax simplification. The Bill creates yet more complexity, often altering major taxes such as stamp duty land tax, introduced only a couple of years ago and already amended considerably last year. It is yet another Bill that conceals its real complexity, in that significant secondary legislation will be required to put it into effect. This is no way to run a tax system. The burden imposed by our tax system since 1997 contributes to the diminishing attractiveness of the UK as a place to do business. It is about time that the Chancellor had a good hard look at the harm that that can do.
	I turn to the Budget itself. The Chancellor clearly wants the economy and his economic record to be centre stage in the election campaign. We have no problem with that. We are all accustomed to the boasts of the Chancellor about growth, employment, interest rates and inflation since 1997. Indeed, the Minister referred to that today as "the gloat". Let me remind the House, that all those beneficial trends started way before 1997; they started under my noble friend Lord Lamont and my right honourable friend Kenneth Clarke. The real question now is how long those trends can continue under Labour's stewardship.
	We have grave doubts. The Chancellor's forecasts are underpinned by GDP growth rates that look to most people to be optimistic. We know that the Chancellor is running scared because he has stopped the Comptroller and Auditor-General auditing the trend rate of GDP growth. Our policies for fiscal stability, with forecasting placed in the hands of independent experts under the auspices of the NAO, would give future Chancellors nowhere to hide in such circumstances.
	The plain fact is that the Budget will require taxes to rise. The effect of the Budget is that "tax freedom day" in 2005–06—the day that we stop working for the Chancellor—has gone out another three days to 31 May. The Chancellor's own figures show that the tax burden as a percentage of GDP will rise from 36.3 per cent in the fiscal year just completed to 38.5 per cent in 2008–09. We can be sure that that will continue to hit the pockets of ordinary hard working people because income tax and national insurance account for nearly half the increase.
	Worse than that, most forecasters believe that there is a black hole in the Chancellor's arithmetic of anything up to £14 billion. The Minister will be aware that today's opinion by the Advocate-General in the Marks & Spencer case, if confirmed by the ECJ, could create another black hole of at least that amount. To date, the Government have been in denial. We believe that they will need to raise taxes if they are re-elected, and the Minister will have seen today's survey showing that 90 per cent of independent economists share that judgment.
	There is worse yet to come. If we are elected, we will slow the rate of growth in public expenditure. Let there be no misunderstanding about that. We are not talking about cutting public services; we are talking about spending less than Labour by slowing the rate of growth, not by spending less in any one year than is currently spent. The difference is £35 billion in 5 years' time. Yesterday, the Prime Minister got it absolutely right—for a change. He said, at a press conference:
	"If the Labour party in opposition had come along and said, 'We're going to spend £35 billion more than the Conservatives over the next five to six years', you guys"—
	meaning the journalists—
	"would have been hounding us from the moment we said that to election day saying, 'Come on, which taxes are you going to raise then?'".
	That is exactly the right question. So will the Minister finally come clean and tell us what taxes the Government plan to raise after the election, if they are elected? Will it be capital gains tax on homes, VAT on food, or another hit on national insurance?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have two points to make on the observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, about the scrutiny of the Bill and what was taken out of it so that it could proceed as it is. First, what was left out of the Bill and, therefore, what was left in the Bill, was certainly agreed by the Conservative Front Bench, and I believe also by the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. So it is not appropriate for anyone in this House to complain about something that has been agreed by both Front Benches in the elected Chamber. Yesterday, a good deal of time was spent by Conservative Back-Benchers disagreeing with their own Front Bench about what was left in the Bill, but that is hardly my problem.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, recognised that there were precedents, particularly in 1983 and 1992. She complained that only four hours were spent in debate on the Bill yesterday, but that succeeded four days of Budget debate which, although the detail of the Bill was not available, nevertheless, covered a large part of the issues that we would be expected to consider.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, repeated—what she has said on many occasions—her grave doubts about the economic future. She contrasted the Treasury forecasts with what she called "most forecasters". The Treasury has looked at its forecasting record, as it always does, against the average of independent forecasters. I say what I have said at least twice yearly for the past seven or eight years, that the Treasury's record in economic forecasting is superior to that of most forecasters. That has been denied on a number of occasions by noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench. They have always been wrong; I see no reason to suppose that they will not be again today.
	The noble Baroness referred quite properly to the view of the Advocate General on the Marks and Spencer's case. All I can possibly say about that is that that is the Advocate General's view; it is not the decision of the court. We still believe strongly in the merits of our case and we will await the final judgment of the court before considering whether any further action is required.
	I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, for starting a new Barnett formula. As the Barnett formula for the devolved nations is one which is not going to go away, despite my noble friend Lord Barnett, we will have to call this, as he does I think, Barnett 2. But the noble Lord is quite right—nobody pays very much attention to what we say here on Finance Bills. That tradition goes back a very long way—not least to Commons resolutions of 1678. I take on board what he says about stamp duty relief in disadvantaged areas. I do not claim it was a success. Of course it was always a time-limited relief and it was planned to continue only until the end of next year. I am glad he approves of the fact that it is being withdrawn more quickly. I believe that I have covered the issues raised. I beg to move.
	On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
	Then, Standing Order 47 having been suspended, Bill read a third time, and passed.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, these rules insert a new Part 76 into the Civil Procedure Rules to support proceedings in the High Court and appeal proceedings in the Court of Appeal under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. The rules were made by the Lord Chancellor in consultation with the Lord Chief Justice on 11 March 2005, shortly after the Act received Royal Assent. The rules came into force immediately after being made but will cease to have effect after 40 days unless they are approved by Parliament.
	A draft version of the Rules of Court was made available on the morning of 10 March during the final stages of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill. The purpose of this amendment to the Civil Procedure Rules is to establish rules to support control order proceedings and relevant appeal proceedings. Civil Procedure Rules are usually made by the Civil Procedure Rules Committee, which is the body established by the Civil Procedure Act 1997, with statutory responsibility for maintaining those rules.
	The committee is chaired by the senior Court of Appeal judge, the Master of the Rolls, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, and the committee consists of representatives from the judiciary, barristers and solicitors as well as consumer affairs and lay representatives.
	Due to the exceptional circumstances in which the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 was passed, it would have been impossible for the Civil Procedure Rules Committee to make the relevant changes to the Rules of Court in the very short period of time available. That is why it was necessary to legislate for a special rule-making procedure to ensure that the Rules of Court for control order proceedings were in place when the first set of control orders were made and served.
	Paragraph 3 of the schedule to the Prevention of Terrorism Act authorises the Lord Chancellor to make rules on the first occasion after the Act was passed, instead of the Civil Procedure Rules Committee. The Master of the Rolls is informed before introduction of the Bill of a need for a special procedure to make the first set of rules.
	The Lord Chancellor, in consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, had made the first set of rules but the Civil Procedure Rules Committee may make any subsequent rules or amendments as and when necessary.
	Rules made by the Civil Procedure Rules Committee will be subject to the normal requirements of the Civil Procedure Act 1997, including the negative resolution procedure. The Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2005 introduce a new Part 76 to the Civil Procedure Rules. The new rules in Part 76 are based on the general principle that the other provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules should apply to control order proceedings and appeals, subject to any necessary modifications.
	New Part 76 is divided into five sections. Section 1 deals with the scope of this part, the interpretation of the terms used and the necessary modification of the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules to ensure that sensitive information is not disclosed contrary to the public interest. It has been modified for the purposes of the new part by placing a new duty on the court to ensure that information is not disclosed contrary to the public interest, and by requiring the overriding objective be read and given effect to in a way which is compatible with that duty.
	Section 2 deals with applications to the High Court relating to derogating control orders. Section 3 deals with permission applications, references and appeals to the High Court relating to non-derogating control orders. Section 4 deals with onward appeals to the Court of Appeal. Section 5 contains general provisions that apply to all proceedings in the High Court and Court of Appeal brought under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. That includes provisions in Rules 76-22 through to 76-25 for closed hearings and the use of special advocates.
	Finally, Section 5 also includes provision in Rules 76-27 through to 76-29, which require the Secretary of State to disclose to the court all the material available to him, and which is relevant to the matter under consideration. The Secretary of State must also disclose all such material to the other party, except where the court permits him to withhold material on the ground that disclosure will be contrary to the public interest.
	If the Secretary of State withholds material from the other party without the permission of the court, the court may prevent the Secretary of State relying on such material himself, or it may withdraw the matter from its consideration.
	These rules reflect the requirements of Paragraph 4(3) of the schedule to the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which was inserted by an amendment to the Bill to meet concerns about the need to establish a procedure for disclosure of exculpatory material.
	I have outlined the substantive provisions of the Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the Rules laid before the House on 14 March be approved [15th Report from the Merits Committee] [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I, too, express my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for standing in. I had already agreed with her colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that if there were issues of particular concern that I was unable to deal with immediately—the noble Baroness read out very beautifully some of those issues—I would write to him. He was very content with that. I shall try to deal with some of those issues, conscious of the desire of the House to pursue business, as well as addressing the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
	The noble Baroness is right that we have disapplied certain parts of the CPR. New Part 76 is to be based on the general principle that other provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules should apply to proceedings brought under the Act as far as possible. In making those rules, the Schedule to the Act required us—as noble Lords will be aware from the long, exciting, interesting and sometimes amazing events earlier this month—to ensure that control orders are properly reviewed by the courts, which is very important, and to secure that disclosures of information are not made where they would be contrary to the public interest. I recognise the issues that noble Lords have raised on that.
	In the light of that, we therefore thought that it was important to make some modifications to the application of the CPR, but we believe that they are limited to what we consider to be absolutely necessary in that context. So Rule 76(2) modifies the overriding objective set out in Part 1. As noble Lords will know, the overriding objective is to enable the courts to deal with, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, cases justly, including, among other things, ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing, saving expense and dealing with the case in a way that is proportionate, expeditious and fair, allotting each case an appropriate share of the court's responsibilities. Equally, Rule 76(26)(1) disapplies Parts 31 to 33 from any proceedings to which Part 76 applies.
	Control order proceedings and relevant appeal proceedings will involve, undoubtedly, a large amount of intelligence material. The nature of that material means that the normal rules of evidence are not apposite. Some of the material will be in the form of witness statements; some will be first-hand or second-hand hearsay; and some will be derived from a variety of different sources, including media reporting.
	To take a brief example: the identification of an individual from a transcript of an intercept may be an issue, which may involve expert hearsay evidence from several witnesses covering several intercepts. In place of Parts 32 and 33 on evidence, Rule 76(26) makes special provision for evidence in control order proceedings. That rule, which is based on Rule 44 of the SIAC rules, ensures that a broad range of intelligence material may be admitted in evidence.
	In place of Part 31 on disclosure, Rules 76(27) and 76(29) make special provision for the filing and service of relevant material by the Secretary of State, which includes the procedure whereby the Secretary of State may apply to withhold closed material from that relevant party. The rules reflect the procedure for disclosure that is required by paragraph 4(3) of the Schedule.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, was concerned about the imbalance in documents required to be directed by the Secretary of State and the controlled person. Where the Secretary of State is required to serve open materials—for example, under Rule 76(6)—the general rules relating to the filing and service of all relevant material in Rules 76(27) and 76(29) will also apply.
	During the passage of the Bill, concern was expressed about a procedure that did not provide for disclosure by the Secretary of State of exculpatory material, which might, of course, be of assistance to another party in relation to a matter under consideration by the court. We responded to that by moving an amendment to the schedule to the Bill—paragraph 4(3)—to which I have already referred. It requires many things, including the requirement that the Secretary of State provides the court with all the material available to him which is relevant to the matter under consideration. We have sought to address that concern.
	I should also say to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that the rules do not remove the requirement to provide skeleton arguments. Paragraphs 5(9) to 5(11) of the practice direction that accompanies Part 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules will apply to those proceedings, which I hope addresses the point made by the noble Baroness.
	The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, particularly focused his remarks on the CASC report. The committee has played a really important role. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is unable to be with us today: I think that he is in Budapest. I am sure that he would have taken part in these discussions. The committee has played a really important part in securing important changes to the special advocate system.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, we plan to introduce further legislative matters to counter terrorism. The committee's recommendation will be given due consideration in developing those new proposals. That is a commitment that I can make. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, has been appointed—I am delighted to say—to review the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, which will include the judicial system that is currently in place.
	As I said in my opening remarks, the rules of court are already in force and control order proceedings have been brought in the High Court in line with the rules that we have debated. It is early days, but I can tell noble Lords that there have been no issues arising on shortcomings in these rules of court and the manner in which proceedings can be pursued in the High Court.
	With the commitment that I have already made to address the substantive points that I was unable to address in my response to both the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and, through her, to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I commend the Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules to the House.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 3.18 to 4.15 p.m.]

:TITLE3:LORDS AMENDMENT
	3 Page 3, line 42, at end insert—
	"( ) In this Act "casino premises" means premises in respect of which a casino premises licence has been granted under section 148(1)(a)."
	The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	3A Because the amendment no longer reflects other amendments made by the Lords.
	4 Page 4, line 6, after "of" insert "casino"
	The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	4A Because the amendment no longer reflects other amendments made by the Lords.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons 3A and 4A.
	Our percentage record is much better than appears. The Commons agreed to 193 out of 195 of the Lords amendments. They disagree to two amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, which were connected to the debate in Committee about the identification of casino customers. As we agreed in debate last night, the amendments are no longer necessary because they have been replaced by a further Lords amendment which has been accepted. I ask that the House do not insist on these amendments.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons 3A and 4A.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

Lord Grocott: My Lords, in moving that the House do now adjourn to await prorogation, I should say that it is most likely to be at five o'clock. We cannot be absolutely precise but any changes and further information will be given on the annunciator. In the mean time, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: "My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
	"My Government have pursued economic policies which have brought about sustained growth and prosperity.
	"My Government have continued to take action to secure high levels of employment as it reforms the welfare state.
	"An Act has been passed that allows for the extension of the circumstances in which a family can be eligible for child benefit for 16 to 19 year-olds who are in learning.
	"Legislation has been enacted to support the continuing fight against terrorism in the United Kingdom.
	"An Act has been passed to reform the office of Lord Chancellor, and to establish a Supreme Court for the United Kingdom and a Judicial Appointments Commission for England and Wales.
	"An Act has been passed as an interim measure to make the electoral register in Northern Ireland both accurate and comprehensive until more permanent measures can be put in place.
	"Legislation has been passed to provide a statutory framework for dealing with the financial, health and welfare decisions of those people who might lack capacity through mental illness or disability.
	"My Government have continued to work towards the reduction of bureaucracy and the costs of government, and towards promoting efficiency. An Act has been passed to integrate the Inland Revenue and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.
	"An Act has been passed to establish the Serious Organised Crime Agency and to strengthen the fight against crime.
	"An Act has been passed to improve local environmental quality by tackling the anti-social behaviour that blights our communities.
	"Legislation has been enacted to streamline the school inspection regime and to bring in three-year budgets for schools, which will help raise standards for every child in every school.
	"An Act has been passed to unify and simplify the ombudsman service in Wales.
	"An Act has been passed to tackle the problem of drug abuse and the crime that flows from it.
	"Legislation has been enacted to enable the United Kingdom to fulfil international commitments to confer privileges and immunities on a number of international organisations and bodies.
	"Measures to reform the law on mental health have undergone pre-legislative scrutiny.
	"Draft legislation has been published to safeguard the welfare of children in circumstances of parental separation and inter-country adoption from countries where there are concerns about child welfare.
	"A draft Bill has been published to introduce a new offence of corporate manslaughter.
	"Draft legislation has been published to ensure the better management and protection of our natural environment and rural communities.
	"A Bill has been introduced to authorise the construction of Crossrail.
	"Other important measures have been enacted.
	"Members of the House of Commons,
	"I thank you for the provision you have made for the work and dignity of the Crown and for the public service.
	"My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
	"The Duke of Edinburgh and I were pleased to receive the State Visit of his Excellency the President of the Republic of Korea and the State Visit of his Excellency the President of Italy.
	"My Government currently hold the G8 presidency, and are placing high priority on the important issues of Africa and climate change.
	"My Government have continued to work with partners around the world to prevent terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and the problems of drug smuggling and international crime.
	"My Government have worked to strengthen the commitment on both sides of the Atlantic to the transatlantic relationship and to the continued effectiveness of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and have worked with the international community to strengthen the United Nations.
	"My Government continue to support the Government of Iraq to provide security and stability following the elections held in January.
	"My Government have continued to support efforts to build peace in the Middle East, to promote democratic reform and reduce conflict and extremism.
	"My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
	"I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your counsels".
	After which the Lord Chancellor said:
	My Lords and Members of the House of Commons, by virtue of Her Majesty's Commission which has been now read We do, in Her Majesty's name, and in obedience to Her Majesty's Commands, prorogue this Parliament to the 14th day of April, to be then there holden, and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued to Thursday, the 14th day of April.
	Parliament was prorogued at twenty-five minutes past five o'clock. Correction
	In col. 725 on Wednesday 6 April, the final phrase of the Lord Whitty's answer to the Baroness Byford should read, "but I do not think that some of the simplistic formulae that are being produced by the industry are negotiable."